VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets Fair Rent for Norwich Property

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on a fair rent for a property in Norwich. They considered the property's condition and market rates, setting the rent at £1100 per month.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a rent level that reflects the open market value of the property, adjusted for its condition.

Topics

tenancy disputesrent determination

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Housing Act 1988 s.14

This section allows a tenant under an assured tenancy to apply to a tribunal to challenge the rent payable under the tenancy. The tribunal will then determine the open-market rent based on reasonable expectations of what a willing landlord would charge for a similar property.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined a fair rental amount for a property in Norwich, considering market rates and the condition of the property.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined a new rent for a property in Norwich, setting it at £1100 per calendar month, after considering the property's condition and market rates.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/33 UG/MNR/2025/0749 Property : [ADDRESS], Ber St., Norwich [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] Representative : None Respondent : [redacted] Representative : [COUNSEL] (Agent) Type of Application : S.13 Housing Act 1988 Determination of a new rent Tribunal : Mr [NAME]. [NAME] and venue of Meeting : 1 December 2025 First Tier Tribunal (Eastern) [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 1 December 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 The First Tier Tribunal received an application form dated 16 September 2025 before the effective date of increase, from a tenant of the Property, regarding a notice of increase of rent served by the landlord, under S.13 of the Housing Act 1988 (the Act).

2 The notice (undated but not otherwise contested), proposed a new rent of £1250 per calendar month exclusive, with effect from and including 9 October 2025. This rent does not include other services.

2 3 The tenancy is now an assured periodic calendar monthly tenancy which originally began for a fixed term on 9 July 2021. A copy was provided.

4 The rent payable up to and including 8 October 2025 was £950 pcm.

Directions

5 Directions, dated 29 September 2025, for the progression of the case, were issued by Legal [NAME] [NAME]. Neither party asked for a hearing.

Inspection

6 There was no inspection. The Property is a single level first floor purpose built flat in a modern c.2010 block, located near to the centre of the City of Norwich. (Google Streetview January 2021). It is set off a central road to the City backing on to an established public house and car park. The building is finished to a series of communal flat roofs at differing heights of this varied modern block. Walls are finished in a mix of glass and steel effect. There are balconies to some flats. The flats overlook a shared hard surfaced car park. The tenant has use of an allocated car space.

7 The Property has 2 bedrooms to the first floor, with the bathroom/WC, shower room/ WC and a large communal room for living, dining and cooking. There is full central heating and double glazing. There are floor finishes. There was no information on white goods and window coverings. No furniture is provided by the landlord.

Tenants’ and Landlord’s Representations

8 The tenant provided written submissions via the Application Form, and a written statement. The tenant set out in detail of a number of serious and chronic medical conditions, making her overall health very fragile for the last 4 years at least. The tenant also provided a statement in support of this from her medical practitioner. She also confirmed that the Property was haunted and that this affected her ability to live there comfortably. Although the tenant disagreed with the proposed rent she did not overtly seek any relief from the start date in any increase.

9 The Tribunal did not receive any representations from the landlord or their agent.

10 The Tribunal did not receive completed Reply Forms from either party.

Law

11 In accordance with the terms of S.14 of the Act we are required to determine the rent at which we consider the property might reasonably

3 be expected to let in the open market, by a willing landlord, under an assured tenancy, on the same terms as the actual tenancy; ignoring any increase in value attributable to tenant’s improvements and any decrease in value due to the tenant’s failure to comply with any terms of the tenancy. Thus the Property falls to be valued as it stands; but assuming that the Property to be in a reasonable internal decorative condition.

Decision

12 From the Tribunal’s own general knowledge of market rent levels in Norwich it determines that the subject Property would let on normal Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) terms, for £1100 per calendar month, fully fitted and in good order.

13 From the representations the Tribunal found that the Property was fully fitted and in good order. The new rent will therefore be £1100 pcm with effect from 9 October 2025.

14 Although the landlord is not obliged to charge this rent and may charge a significantly lower rent as a result of their own choice, policy, or governmental regulation; they may not charge more than this figure.

[NAME] 1 December 2025

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on any point of law arising from this Decision.

Prior to making such an appeal, an application must be made, in writing, to this Tribunal for permission to appeal. Any such application must be made within 28 days of the issue of this decision to the person making the application (regulation 52 (2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rule 2013).

If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

4 The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e., give the date, the property, and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • Rent should reflect the open market value of the property.
  • Rent should be adjusted for the property's condition.
  • Comparisons with similar properties in the area are considered.
  • The Housing Act 1988 is applied to determine fair rent.
  • Minor defects in the property are taken into account.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It set a new rent of £1100 per month for a property in Norwich.

Who was involved?

A tenant and a landlord were involved in the dispute over rent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the property's condition and market rates, ensuring the rent was fair.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Housing Act 1988 sections 13 and 14 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The condition of the property and its market value were crucial arguments.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the tenant, setting a fairer rent.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider the property's condition and market rates when disputing rent.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Written statements from both parties and the property's condition were important.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.